Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à The Chicken/Egg Spiral
Similaire à The Chicken/Egg Spiral (20)
Plus de Goteo / Platoniq
Plus de Goteo / Platoniq (15)
The Chicken/Egg Spiral
- 1. The Chicken/Egg Spiral "Reconciling" the Conflict Between Economic Growth and Environmental Protection with Technological Progress
- 6. Y = (K, L) Production Function Czech, B. 2009. The neoclassical production function as a relic of anti-George politics: implications for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 68:2193-2197.
- 7. Business Household $ Neoclassical Economy
- 8. Business Household $ With Economic Growth
- 10. Ecological Economy Heat Natural Capital Pollutants Natural Capital
- 11. With Economic Growth Heat Natural Capital Pollutants Natural Capital
- 14. Time GDP K Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature Economic Growth and Natural Capital
- 15. Fisheries Volume 30 Series Logo
- 16. K GDP Time ...maintain steady state economy sufficiently below K . To conserve fish and wildlife... Therefore
- 17. But what about technological progress?
- 18. But what about technological progress? Czech, B. 2008. Prospects for reconciling economic growth and biodiversity conservation with technological progress. Conservation Biology 22(6):1389-1398.
- 22. K T GDP Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X natural capital allocable Time K U Natural Capital Allocation
- 23. Capital-free growth zone K T 1 K T 2 GDP Time K U Reconciliation Hypothesis Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X natural capital (still) allocable
- 25. Consider the Sources of Technological Progress
- 26. R&D Sources of Technological Progress
- 28. Representative Nations (Duga and Stadt 2005) 22% 7% 71% USA 24.1% 8.9% 67.0% UK 19.5% 2.8% 77.6% Sweden 5.6% 24.5% 69.9% Russia 33.8% 44.9% 21.4% Poland 30.6% 39.1% 30.3% Mexico 16.1% 9.5% 74.4% Japan 17.1% 13.8% 69.1% Germany 10.1% 28.7% 61.2% China 29.5% 22.9% 47.5% Australia Acad./Other Government Corporations Nation
- 29. Representative Nations 30% global R&D (Duga and Stadt 2005) 22% 7% 71% USA 24.1% 8.9% 67.0% UK 19.5% 2.8% 77.6% Sweden 5.6% 24.5% 69.9% Russia 33.8% 44.9% 21.4% Poland 30.6% 39.1% 30.3% Mexico 16.1% 9.5% 74.4% Japan 17.1% 13.8% 69.1% Germany 10.1% 28.7% 61.2% China 29.5% 22.9% 47.5% Australia Acad./Other Government Corporations Nation
- 34. U.S. R&D, 2006, Billions $ National Research Council (2007) 174 69 55 299 299 Total 3 (1%) Other gov. 3 (2%) 4 (6%) 8 (15%) 15 (5%) 10 (3%) Non-profits 10 (6%) 7 (10%) 4 (7%) 21 (7%) 84 (28%) Fed. gov. 3 (2%) 11 (16%) 35 (64%) 50 (17%) 8 (3%) College/univ. 158 (91%) 47 (68%) 8 (15%) 213 (71%) 194 (65%) Industry Devel. Applied Basic Conducted Funded Entity
- 35. U.S. R&D, 2006, Billions $ National Research Council (2007) 174 69 55 299 299 Total 3 (1%) Other gov. 3 (2%) 4 (6%) 8 (15%) 15 (5%) 10 (3%) Non-profits 10 (6%) 7 (10%) 4 (7%) 21 (7%) 84 (28%) Fed. gov. 3 (2%) 11 (16%) 35 (64%) 50 (17%) 8 (3%) College/univ. 158 (91%) 47 (68%) 8 (15%) 213 (71%) 194 (65%) Industry Devel. Applied Basic Conducted Funded Entity
- 36. U.S. R&D, 2006, Billions $ National Research Council (2007) 174 69 55 299 299 Total 3 (1%) Other gov. 3 (2%) 4 (6%) 8 (15%) 15 (5%) 10 (3%) Non-profits 10 (6%) 7 (10%) 4 (7%) 21 (7%) 84 (28%) Fed. gov. 3 (2%) 11 (16%) 35 (64%) 50 (17%) 8 (3%) College/univ. 158 (91%) 47 (68%) 8 (15%) 213 (71%) 194 (65%) Industry Devel. Applied Basic Conducted Funded Entity
- 37. U.S. R&D, 2006, Billions $ National Research Council (2007) 174 69 55 299 299 Total 3 (1%) Other gov. 3 (2%) 4 (6%) 8 (15%) 15 (5%) 10 (3%) Non-profits 10 (6%) 7 (10%) 4 (7%) 21 (7%) 84 (28%) Fed. gov. 3 (2%) 11 (16%) 35 (64%) 50 (17%) 8 (3%) College/univ. 158 (91%) 47 (68%) 8 (15%) 213 (71%) 194 (65%) Industry Devel. Applied Basic Conducted Funded Entity
- 38. U.S. R&D, 2006, Billions $ National Research Council (2007) 174 69 55 299 299 Total 3 (1%) Other gov. 3 (2%) 4 (6%) 8 (15%) 15 (5%) 10 (3%) Non-profits 10 (6%) 7 (10%) 4 (7%) 21 (7%) 84 (28%) Fed. gov. 3 (2%) 11 (16%) 35 (64%) 50 (17%) 8 (3%) College/univ. 158 (91%) 47 (68%) 8 (15%) 213 (71%) 194 (65%) Industry Devel. Applied Basic Conducted Funded Entity
- 39. But assume the R&D complex generates technical efficiency gains.
- 42. R&D _______ Sources of Technological Progress
- 43. R&D Profits Sources of Technological Progress
- 44. Profits
- 46. R&D Profits Catch-22? Sources of Technological Progress
- 47. R&D ________________ Consider the Sources Profits
- 48. R&D Profits Economies of scale Consider the Sources
- 51. X/2 re-allocated K T 1 K T 2 GDP Time K U Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X/2 natural capital allocable Hypothesis Refuted
- 52. Biodiversity loss GDP-TP TP1 TP3 K TP2 "Chicken-Egg Spiral"
Notes de l'éditeur
- Technological progress, in the vernacular, implies inventions and innovation. In economic terms, technological progress refers to increasing output per unit input, or increasing “productive efficiency,” resulting from inventions and innovation.
- Technological progress, in the vernacular, implies inventions and innovation. In economic terms, technological progress refers to increasing output per unit input, or increasing “productive efficiency,” resulting from inventions and innovation.
- Technological progress, in the vernacular, implies inventions and innovation. In economic terms, technological progress refers to increasing output per unit input, or increasing “productive efficiency,” resulting from inventions and innovation.
- The first law of thermodynamics, along with Einstein’s insight on the equivalence of energy and matter, tell us that neither energy nor matter may be created nor destroyed (although they may be transformed). This puts a ceiling on the amount of material and energy available for economic production. The second law, the entropy law, may be reduced to the statement that no production process may achieve 100% efficiency. The first and second laws do not allow for a perpetual increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. That is, they put a cap on economic growth.